dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5847043 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 9, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both: (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into 
the position . 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of 
record did not establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LAW 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010) . 
(]) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We construe the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing "a degree requirement in a 
specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and responsibilities of a particular 
position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
II. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner is a computer software solutions and services firm, engaged in the design and 
development of digital ordering and customer engagement programs for clients within the quick serve 
restaurant and casual dining industries. It seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "product manager." 2 
The Petitioner described the position's duties, and the percentage of the Beneficiary's time required 
to perform them, as follows (verbatim): 3 
• Work across multi-functional teams to build the platform and deliver software 
application products and outcomes to the customer. (20%) 
• Work collaboratively with software development engineers to drive [the 
Petitioner's] Product Roadmap; key customer relationships, initiatives and 
outcomes; and product delivery through direct engagement with development and 
other [Petitioner] teams. (10%) 
• Build a best-in-class software platform and products which deliver outcomes for 
our global, multi-unit I I brand customers as well as 
drive Company's growth. (5%) 
• Actively engage key stakeholders, internally and externally, to drive business 
requirements definition and keep all stakeholders informed of progress; ensure that 
executive sponsors are aware of any potential roadblocks or inability to deliver as 
committed. (10%) 
2 The Petitioner most recently employed the Beneficiary through her employment authorization granted through the 
regulatory provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 274.a.12( c )(26). 
3 Notably the Petitioner's time percentage estimates for the Beneficiary's job duties totaled 110% of her work time. 
2 
• Represent its business, products, and services offering, and internally, be a balanced 
advocate of the business needs of clients and key stakeholders. (10%) 
• Gather requirements, conduct gap analysis, write business and technical 
specifications. (10%) 
• Assess and manage scope of work, decomposing high-level business requirements 
and develop into lower level tasks. (10%) 
• Test and monitor for customer and user satisfaction and resolve any software issues 
related to deliver satisfaction as evidence by analysis, traffic, reviews, customer 
feedback and other metrics. (10%) 
• Develop business process workflows and how they are supported through impact 
and workarounds, and evaluate alternative business solutions. (5%) 
• Create user training and on-going support documentation, and facilitate training 
sessions. (5%) 
• Lead, manage and utilize software tools, systems and methodologies which are 
consistent with an Agile product environment. (5%) 
• Work with colleagues to mature [the Petitioner's] Agile methodologies and specific 
disciplines such as effective retrospectives. (5%) 
III. ANALYSIS 
For the reasons set out below, we have determined that the proffered position does not qualify as a 
specialty occupation. Specifically, the record does not establish that the job duties reqmre an 
educational background, or its equivalent, commensurate with a specialty occupation. 4 
A. First Criterion 
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I), requires that a baccalaureate or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular 
position. 
To inform this inquiry, we recognize the Department of Labor's (DOL) Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (Handbook) as an authoritative source on the duties and educational requirements of the 
wide variety of occupations that it addresses. 5 We do not maintain that the Handbook is the exclusive 
source of relevant information. That is, the occupational category designated by the Petitioner is 
considered as an aspect in establishing the general tasks and responsibilities of a proffered position, 
and we regularly review the Handbook on the duties and educational requirements of the wide variety 
of occupations that it addresses. Nevertheless, to satisfy the first criterion, the burden of proof remains 
on the Petitioner to submit sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that its particular position would 
normally have a minimum, specialty degree requirement, or its equivalent, for entry. 
The Petitioner designated the position on the labor condition application (LCA) 6 as a Standard 
Occupation Classification (SOC) code 15-1121, "Computer Systems Analysts" occupation at a Level 
4 The Petitioner submitted documentation in support of the H-IB petition, including evidence regarding the proffered 
position. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 The Handbook may be accessed at https://www.bls.gov/ooh. 
6 A petitioner is required to submit an LCA to the Department of Labor to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1 B worker the 
3 
II wage. Thus, we reviewed the Handbook's subchapter entitled "How to Become a Computer Systems 
Analyst," which states, in relevant part, that a bachelor's degree in a computer or information science 
field is common, although not always a requirement. 7 According to the Handbook, some firms hire 
analysts with business or liberal arts degrees. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts "[t]he fact that liberal 
arts degrees are acceptable is irrelevant and does not negate from the fact that a Bachelor's degree is 
commonly (i.e. normally/typically) required." We disagree that the Handbook's inclusion of liberal 
arts degrees as acceptable for entry into the occupation is irrelevant. The Handbook recognizes that 
there are a range of disparate degrees that may be suitable for entering into this occupation. It is this 
imprecise and varied information in the Handbook regarding the ways to enter into this occupation that 
precludes a conclusion that there is categorically a normal minimum educational requirement to enter the 
occupation. 
Since there must be a close correlation between the required specialized studies and the position, a 
requirement for general and wide-ranging degrees such as in business and liberal arts strongly suggests 
that Computer Systems Analysts positions are not categorically a specialty occupation. 8 Further, 
while the Handbook indicates that Computer Systems Analysts without a computer-related degree 
obtain related skills and experience elsewhere, it does not quantify the skills and experience needed 
for entry into this occupation by individuals without a computer-science related degree. It further 
reports that many analysts have technical degrees. However, the Handbook does not specify a degree 
level (e.g., associate's degree, baccalaureate) for these technical degrees. 
In the absence of support from the Handbook, the record contains alternative evidence for our 
consideration, including information from DO L's Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Though 
relevant, O*NET's summary report for "Computer Systems Analysts," SOC code 15-1121.00, does not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the first criterion, as it does not establish that a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, is normally required. The summary report provides general 
information regarding the occupation; however, it does not support the Petitioner's assertion regarding 
the educational requirements for these positions. First, O*NET assigns these positions a "Job Zone 
Four" rating, which states only that most but not all of the occupations within it require a bachelor's 
degree. Further, as indicated above a requirement for a bachelor's degree alone is not sufficient. 
Instead, we have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just any baccalaureate or 
higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. See Royal 
Siam Corp., 484 F.3d at 147; Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. O*NET does not indicate that when a four­
year bachelor's degree is required, that it must be in a specific specialty directly related to the 
higher of either the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment or the actual wage paid 
by the employer to other employees with similar duties, experience, and qualifications. Section 212(n)(l) of the Act; 
20 C.F.R. § 655.73l(a). 
7 Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Computer Systems Analyst, 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-systems-analysts.htm (last visited Jan. 8, 
2020). We observe that the Handbook information that we discuss herein comports to the information regarding the 
Computer Systems Analyst Handbook material initially presented with the petition, even though the Handbook report for 
this occupation has been subsequently updated. 
8 See id. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988). See also Altimetrik Corp. v. Cissna, 
No. 18-10116, 2018 WL 6604258, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2018) (the Handbook "makes it clear that a degree in a 
computer-related field is not required" for these positions, and therefore "USCIS [was] entitled to deference in its finding 
that systems analysts are not required to have a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty"). 
4 
occupation, or the equivalent. Therefore, this information does not establish the proffered position as 
a specialty occupation. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a 
baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not met its burden to 
establish that the particular position offered in this matter requires a bachelor's or higher degree in a 
specific specialty, or its equivalent, directly related to its duties in order to perform those tasks. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(I). 
B. Second Criterion 
The second criterion presents two, alternative prongs: 'The degree requirement is common to the 
industry in parallel positions among similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
a degree[.]" 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (emphasis added). The first prong contemplates 
common industry practice with regard to positions that are "parallel" to the one under consideration, 
while the alternative prong narrows its focus to the Petitioner's specific position. 
1. First Prong 
To satisfy this first prong of the second criterion, the Petitioner must establish that the "degree 
requirement" (i.e., a requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent) 
is common to the industry in parallel positions among similar organizations. 
We generally consider the following sources of evidence to determine if there is such a common degree 
requirement: whether the Handbook reports that the industry requires a degree; whether the industry's 
professional association has made a degree a minimum entry requirement; and whether letters or 
affidavits from firms or individuals in the industry attest that such firms "routinely employ and recruit 
only degreed individuals." See Shanti, Inc. v. Reno, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1165 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting 
Hird/Blaker Corp. v. Sava, 712 F. Supp. 1095, 1102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (considering these "factors" to 
inform the commonality of a degree requirement)). 
The Petitioner has not established that its proffered position is one for which the Handbook ( or other 
independent, authoritative sources) reports an industry-wide requirement for at least a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Thus, we incorporate by reference the previous discussion on the 
matter. Also, there are no submissions from the industry's professional association indicating that it has 
made a degree a minimum entry requirement. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit any letters or 
affidavits from similar firms or individuals in the Petitioner's industry attesting that such firms "routinely 
employ and recruit only degreed individuals." 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner provided copies of job announcements placed by other 
employers. However, upon review of the documents, we find that the Petitioner's reliance on the job 
announcements is misplaced. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "[ w ]hat can be statistically inferred 
from each of the advertisements provided is that the same/similar posted positions each consistently 
require a Bachelor of Computer Science .... " However, for a number of reasons the Petitioner's 
5 
statements in this regard are not persuasive. First, the Petitioner has not presented an independent, 
statistically valid analysis of hiring practices within its industry for positions that are the same or 
similar to the proffered position, or other probative evidence to support its assertion. Additionally, 
the Petitioner has not identified the selection process for the inclusion of these particular job 
announcements within its submission to establish how representative they are of the industry's hiring 
practices as a whole. 
The Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the job announcements from other employers are for 
"parallel positions." Here, the Petitioner does not require prior experience and indicated that the 
proffered position is a Level II position on the LCA. 9 The job advertisements from other employers 
in the record do not appear to be sufficiently the same or similar to qualify as parallel positions to the 
instant position, and are summarized as follows: 
• G- posted a head of product management pos1t10n, which requires a degree in 
computer science, computer engineering, MIS, business or related technical field; and 
ten plus years in a product management role such as ad tech, marketing tech, online 
advertising, location technology, and media measurement. 
• A-posted a senior product management position, which requires a degree in computer 
science, engineering, statistics, business or other related bachelor's degree; five years 
of product management experience, and one year of Agile experience. 
• C- posted a product management - software position, which requires a degree in 
computer science, business administration, or similar field; and three to five years of 
experience in a product management role. 
• E- posted an innovation product management position, which requires a bachelor's 
degree, noting that a degree in a computer or related technical field is a plus; and two 
to four years of experience in a software product management role. 
• H- posted a software product management 3d printing position, which requires a 
bachelor's or master's degree in relevant field ( engineering or business); and four plus 
years of experience in product management, marketing, sales, or development. 
Notably, most of the postings appear to be for more senior, experienced positions than the proffered 
position. Moreover, even if we assume that the job postings submitted include duties and responsibilities 
that are parallel to the duties listed for the proffered position, and are from similar organizations, these 
job postings confirm that there are a variety of paths available to enter into the occupation. The job 
postings also raise significant concern that if the proffered position is parallel to the majority of the 
positions posted, as the Petitioner claims, that the Petitioner has not submitted a certified LCA that 
supports the petition. 10 
9 A prevailing wage determination starts with an entry-level wage and progresses to a higher wage level after considering 
the experience, education, and skill requirements of the Petitioner's job opportunity. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Emp't & 
Training Admin., Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, Nonagric. Immigration Programs (rev. Nov. 2009), 
available at http://t1cdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC _ Guidance_ Revised_ l l _ 2009.pdf 
10 See 20 C.F.R. ~ 655.705(b), which requires that USCTS ensure that an LCA supports the H-lB petition filed on behalf 
of the Beneficiary. 
6 
As noted, the Petitioner identified the proffered position as a wage Level II position on the certified LCA. 
A position for a Job Zone Four occupation 11 with a Specialized Vocational Preparation (SVP) rating of 
"7.0 < 8.0" requires a three level increase in wage level for positions requiring more than four years of 
experience. Thus, even though some of the job postings may have included duties similar to the duties 
of the proffered position, the majority of the postings either are for more senior positions than the proposed 
position; or if the duties and levels of responsibility truly correspond to the proffered position, the 
Petitioner has not provided a certified LCA that includes a wage level that is commensurate with the 
duties and responsibilities required of its position. 
Further, the degree requirements presented in the job postings are too varied and broad to be considered 
a degree in a specific discipline, or its equivalent. 12 That is, these job postings are insufficient to conclude 
that there is at least a bachelor's degree requirement in a specific specialty, or its equivalent that is 
common to the industry in parallel positions. Rather, the job postings submitted confirm that there is not 
a specific degree that is common to the industry for this occupation. For instance, the advertisements 
collectively find a general business degree or a general bachelor's degree is acceptable to perform the 
duties of the advertised positions. Additionally, four out of the five advertised positions require three plus 
years of experience to qualify for the advertised positions. 13 The job postings when considered as a whole 
confirm the Handbook's report that there are a variety of paths available to enter the occupation, including 
degrees of general applicability. The advertisements do not support a conclusion that there is a common 
industry requirement for parallel positions within organizations that are similar to the Petitioner. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the job postings are pertinent to the matter at 
hand. As the job postings do not establish that the Petitioner has met this prong of the regulations, 
further analysis regarding the specific information contained in each of the job postings is not 
necessary. 14 That is, not every deficit of every job posting has been addressed. We therefore conclude 
that the Petitioner has not satisfied the first alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
2. Second Prong 
The second alternative prong of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2) is satisfied if the Petitioner shows 
that its particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with 
at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. Although the Petitioner mentioned 
11 As previously discussed, the "Computer Systems Analysts" is a Job Zone Four, with an SVP rating of 7.0 < 8.0, 
occupation. See https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-l l 2 l .OO (last visited Jan. 8, 2020). 
12 To prove that a job requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge as 
required by section 2 l 4(i)(l) of the Act, a petitioner must establish that the position requires the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in a specialized field of study or its equivalent. Again, we interpret the degree requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) to require a degree in a specific specialty that is directly related to the proposed position. A general 
degree in business, without more, is insufficient to establish a position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Although a 
general-purpose bachelor's degree, such as a degree in business, may be a legitimate prerequisite for a particular position, 
requiring such a degree, without more, will not justify a conclusion that a particular position qualifies for classification as 
a specialty occupation. Royal Siam Co1p., 484 F.3d at 147. 
13 Such a requirement requires at least a two-level increase in the wage. Prevailing Wage Determination Policy Guidance, 
supra. 
14 For example, the he Petitioner does not provide any independent evidence of how representative the job postings are of 
the particular advertising employers' recruiting history for the type of job advertised. As the advertisements are only 
solicitations for hire, they are not evidence of the actual hiring practices of these employers. 
7 
this criterion tacitly in the appeal brief, it did not provide a meaningful discussion of the issues in 
greater detail. We therefore consider its claims under this criterion to be abandoned; as such, forth er 
discussion is unnecessary. 15 The Petitioner has not satisfied the second prong of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)(2). 
C. Third Criterion 
The third criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) entails an employer demonstrating that it normally 
requires a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the position. Evidence 
provided in support of this criterion may include, but is not limited to, documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's past recruitment and hiring practices, as well as information regarding employees who 
previously held the position. 
Before the Director, the Petitioner submitted job postings for similar positions for its employees. The 
Director explained why she determined this evidence was insufficient to satisfy this criterion's 
requirements. On appeal, the Petitioner references these job postings and explains that "[t]hese 
position [postings] were used as examples of its hiring practices to show that across the board a degree 
is normally required." However, the record must establish that a petitioner's stated degree requirement 
is not a matter of preference for high-caliber candidates but is necessitated instead by performance 
requirements of the position. 16 Were USCIS limited solely to reviewing the Petitioner's claimed self­
imposed requirements, then any individual with a bachelor's degree could be brought to the United 
States to perform any occupation as long as the Petitioner created a token degree requirement. 17 
On the job announcements the Petitioner submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), we observe several issues leading us to conclude that this material is insufficient to meet the 
Petitioner's burden under this criterion. First, we agree with the Director that most of the postings call 
for a degree requirement of "bachelor's degree in relevant field of work," which without more is 
insufficient to support a finding that the proffered position is one for which a bachelor or higher degree 
in a specific specialty is required. 
Second, the announcements also include an experiential requirement ranging between "3+" and 1 0+" 
years in length that the Petitioner did not folly discuss within the petition, which could indicate the job 
announcements were for more senior positions. For instance, in addition to the "bachelor's degree in 
relevant field of work degree" requirement, one senior product manager (director of product) position 
15 The mention of an error in an appeal brief, absent any specific argument as to how the previous entity was in error, is 
insufficient to present the matter for adjudication on appeal. Zivojinovich v. Barner, 525 F.3d 1059, 1062 (11th Cir. 2008) 
(citing Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc., 549 F.2d 314, 324 (5th Cir.1977)); Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 
1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir.1989) (stating that passing references to issues are insufficient to raise a claim for appeal, and 
such issues are deemed abandoned); Hershinow v. Bonamarte, 735 F.2d 264, 266 (7th Cir.1984) (the appellate body will 
not consider issues presented in a perfunctory and underdeveloped manner in the brief). 
16 See Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387. A petitioner must demonstrate that its imposed requirements are genuine. Sagarwala v. 
Cissna, No. CV 18-2860 (RC), 2019 WL 3084309, at *9 (D.D.C. July 15, 2019). Cf Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 T&N Dec. 
at 560 (finding: (1) the requirement of a degree for the sake of general education, or to obtain what an employer perceives 
to be a higher caliber employee, does not establish eligibility; and (2) an analysis of eligibility includes not only the actual 
requirements specified by the petitioner but also those required by the specific industry in question, to determine, in part, 
the validity of a petitioner's requirements). 
17 Defensor, 201 F.3d at 387-88. 
8 
also required "7+ years' experience in a product owner/leader role," and "Agile/Scrum Master 
certifications," while another position with the same job title also required "3+ years' experience as a 
Director/Senior Director of Product," and "10+ years' experience overall as a product owner/leader." 
Likewise, a senior product manager position also required "7+ years' experience in a product 
owner/leader role," and "5+ years' experience" in the position. Additionally, another senior product 
manager position posting specified requirements of "a B.S or B.A required; computer science or 
engineering ( or related technical field) desired but not required," along with a "minimum of 5 years 
of experience at a fast paced software development company," and a "minimum of 3 years of 
experience in the role of Product Owner or Product Manager." Further, a product manager position 
also required "3+ years' experience" in the position. 
Upon farther review of the Petitioner's statements and job announcements, we question what its actual 
requirements are for the proffered position. Within the initial filing, it indicated that it required a 
"bachelor's degree in Computer Science/Engineering or its equivalent." In its RFE response, the 
Petitioner required "a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer 
Science, Electronics Engineering, or related field of study." It contemporaneously provided the 
aforementioned job announcements which alternatively required a "bachelor's degree in relevant field 
of work degree," "a B. S or B.A required; computer science or engineering ( or related technical field) 
desired but not required," and universally specified three or more years of work experience. 18 Then 
within the appeal brief, the Petitioner stated that the position required a "Master of Science degree in 
Computer Science." The Petitioner does not explain why the position requirements presented on appeal 
differ from the wide array of position requirements that the Petitioner previously put forth, both in its 
letters submitted in support of the petition, and within its job announcements. 19 
Collectively considering this material, we conclude the Petitioner's inconsistent claims and evidence 
serve to undermine the probative nature of its assertions relating to the proffered position's 
prerequisites. It is the Petitioner's burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that it is qualified 
for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility 
is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. Without more, the 
Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it normally requires at least a 
bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, for the proffered position. Therefore, it has 
not satisfied the third criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
D. Fourth Criterion 
The fourth criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) requires a petitioner to establish that the nature 
of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. 
18 We note that the Petitioner indicated that these job announcements were "postings for the same or similar positions at 
[the Petitioner]." We also observe that if the proffered position's actual prerequisites included the experience a1iiculated 
in the job announcements, this could call into question the correctness of the Petitioner's designated wage rage on the 
LCA. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b). 
19 The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
9 
The Petitioner provided information regarding the proffered position and its business operations, 
including the documentation previously outlined. While the evidence provides some insights into the 
Petitioner's business activities, the documents do not establish that the nature of the specific duties of 
the proffered position is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is 
usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. For example, the Petitioner provided a bulleted list of the proffered position's day-to-day 
duties which include the following tasks: 
• Groom product backlog and prioritize for releases. 
• Groom sprint backlog and define the purpose of the sprints leading to a future 
release. 
• Prepare client facing UAT test scripts to help understand capabilities 
offered/enabled. 
• Review tests cases as requested. 
• Provide user stories for requirements. 
• Share user stories with clients - [client] often uses Beneficiary's user stories to 
build the Company's own acceptance script. 
• Conduct estimation/review meetings. 
• Release planning and preparing/reviewing release notes. 
• Review customer portal roadmap tickets and UAT/Prod product defects. 
• Triage defects and define/update expected/acceptance criteria. 
• Assist in building the project plan, release plan and communicate on 
project/release statuses to the clients. 
• Perform competitive discover of similar food apps to be at par or ahead of 
competing product lines. 
• Corralling and following up on efforts with the client and internal teams to track 
features/releases to completion. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of the Beneficiary's work product prepared for one of its clients, 
and indicated that the Beneficiary "has led ADA efforts for web WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 for [the 
client]." The material presented includes a program charter, web page requirements, and background 
material on the Petitioner's project for this client. We acknowledge that the duties outlined by the 
Petitioner appear consonant with the duties for the "Computer Systems Analyst" occupation in the 
submitted O*NET summary report. 20 However, the Petitioner did not sufficiently specifically explain 
which aspects of the job duties are so specialized and complex, and why. For instance, on appeal the 
Petitioner indicates: 
[The Petitioner] has developed an internal team with ADA expertise who provide 
oversight, education and partnerships with software developers who have created and 
deployed commercial tools to make digital media accessible to disability communities, 
for which the Beneficiary spearheads in her position as Product Manager." 
20 The O*NET Summary Report for "Computer Systems Analysts," may be viewed at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/l 5-l l 2 l .OO (last visited Jan. 8, 2020). 
10 
Moreover, the Petitioner emphasized throughout the proceedings that the Beneficiary will liaise or 
interact with various client personnel and internal stakeholder groups, including: 
• Work across multi-functional teams to build the platform and deliver software 
application products and outcomes to the customer. 
• Work collaboratively with software development engineers to drive [the 
Petitioner's] Product Roadmap; key customer relationships, initiatives and 
outcomes; and product delivery through direct engagement with development and 
other [Petitioner] teams. 
• Actively engage key stakeholders, internally and externally, to drive business 
requirements definition and keep all stakeholders informed of progress; ensure that 
executive sponsors are aware of any potential roadblocks or inability to deliver as 
committed. 
• Represent its business, products, and services offering, and internally, be a balanced 
advocate of the business needs of clients and key stakeholders. 
• Test and monitor for customer and user satisfaction and resolve any software issues 
related to deliver satisfaction as evidence by analysis, traffic, reviews, customer 
feedback and other metrics. 
• Work with colleagues to mature [the Petitioner's] Agile methodologies and specific 
disciplines such as effective retrospectives. 
We also note that the Beneficiary is employed within the Petitioner's "product platform" operational 
function. The Director requested evidence in her request for evidence (RFE) regarding the 
organizational hierarchy in which the Beneficiary will be employed, to include a line and block 
organizational chart that illustrates the staffing levels and the Beneficiary's relative location therein, 
her prospective supervisory and reporting chain, and other similar information. The submitted 
organization charts reflect that the Beneficiary reports to its "senior director - product" position by 
virtue of a downward arrow pointing to a box that identifies the Beneficiary as a "product manager." 
The organizational charts also illustrate various high-level positions senior to her supervisor who hold 
positions in other operational functions, such as "marketing" and "technology." However, this 
material lends little insight into the proffered position's placement within the Petitioner's 
organizational hierarchy on the various "multi-functional teams" to which she is assigned. 
The Petitioner also mentioned that the Beneficiary does not supervise other employees, but does 
collaborate with and mentor others. However, the record does not sufficiently establish the substantive 
nature of the Beneficiary's position within any of the Petitioner's working groups or other hierarchal 
structure. Thus, the Petitioner did not satisfactorily develop relative specialization or complexity as 
an aspect of the position within the context of others employed within its operational functions. The 
record lacks sufficiently detailed information to distinguish the proffered position as so unique or 
complex such that it requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 
Considering the record in its entirety, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments in this regard. 
For instance, the Petitioner did not submit information relevant to a detailed course of study leading 
to a specialty degree and did not establish how such a curriculum is necessary to perform the duties it 
may believe are so specialized and complex. While a few related courses may be beneficial, or even 
required, in performing certain duties of the position, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how an 
11 
established curriculum of such courses leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific 
specialty, or its equivalent, is required to perform the duties of the proffered position. The description 
of the duties does not specifically identify any tasks that are so complex or unique that only a 
specifically degreed individual could perform them. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary is well qualified for the position, and references her 
qualifications, asserting "the blend of fundamental technological and software engineering 
backgrounds gained through a Master's degree program in Computer Science .... provided [the 
Beneficiary] with the required skills set to succeed in the [proffered position] as offered by [the 
Petitioner]." However, the test to establish a position as a specialty occupation is not the education or 
experience of a proposed beneficiary, but whether the position itself requires at least a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent. 21 Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently develop 
relative specialization and complexity as an aspect of the duties of the position to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated in the record that its proffered 
position is one with duties sufficiently specialized and complex to satisfy 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established the proffered position is a specialty occupation. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
21 Further, we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered position 
qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was qualified for the position at 
the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed. Cf Matter of Michael Hertz As.mes., 19 l&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 
1988) ("The facts of a beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner 
intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). 
12